So I’m munching on some cracklins and the label says a half ounce serving has 8g of protein. Next to it in smaller type is “Not a significant source of protein.” Huh? Is it some sort of indigestable protein? Why list any number at all if it’s insignificant?
The human body requires a specific ratio of the essential amino acids that make up protein. If a food is badly deficient in even one, only a small portion of that protein is usable.
The RDA for protein for an adult man is 56 grams per day. If you tried to meet all of that, or even, say, half of it, with those cracklins, you’d need to eat a lot of them, probably more than would really be recommended.
Incomplete protein is the term. Protein with all of the essential aminos is therefore referred to as a complete protein.
It may not be “significant” in that it’s not the level of protein you’d find in meat (for instance, 3 ounces of pork has over 20 grams of protein), but it’s not insignificant. An ounce of cheddar cheese has about 8 grams of protein; a serving of oatmeal has 5 grams; a cup of milk has about 8 grams. Speaking as a vegetarian, I consider a food with 8 grams of protein per serving to be a pretty good source.
Maybe someone wants it to be clear that consumers shouldn’t think that “cracklins” (are we talking fried pork skins here?) are the nutritional equivalent of a serving of meat.
:smack: That’s the phrase I was trying to remember. Thanks.
Half an ounce serving is 14 grams, 8 of which are protein and thats not significant? Im puzzled.
Yeah, but if you eat something else with the other amino acids in it (which is hard to avoid doing unless you eat a really shitty diet), you’re golden. Worrying about incomplete proteins isn’t worthwhile for most people.
One thing I have long noticed, which may be related to the completeness of the amino acids, is that the percent RDA shown for protein is inconsistent; for example, a can of tuna has 11 grams and 20% of your RDA per serving, while a protein bar (mostly nuts and dark chocolate, no added protein) has 10 grams and 15%, which could be explained by meat being complete and nuts incomplete proteins.
Also, how come I see foods (such as cereals) that claim to be a significant/good source of Vitamin A (or whatever), yet have only like 10% of your RDA of that nutrient (see Chronos’ reply)?
Not sure why they’d say that either. About cracklins. Sure high in calories and fat and sodium but 8 grams of complete protein is what it is and aint insignificant. Pork skins not too much different.
One has to love NutritionData’s “inflammation factor” rating; I wouldn’t expect pork rinds to be anti-inflammatory, yet they think liver with all of its nutrients is the evil, as compared to cow brains with their impossibly high cholesterol content (oddly enough, the inflammatory liver has the highest rating of any of these foods for “optimum health”; and so much for the adage about apples; “mildly inflammatory”).
ETA: I just noticed that NutritionData thinks that pork skins are a poor source of complete protein, with an amino acid score of only 28 (100 or more is considered complete), even worse than apples (score of 31).
I’m guessing pork skins are lots of collagen which is not a complete protein in and of itself being deficient in tryptophan. Which as pointed out is not really pertinent to that description as “not significant.” No one, for example, would call beef tendon (often served in pho and very yummy), which is mostly collagen, an insignificant protein source. Skins usually get called pork rinds; craklins are “basically uncured bacon, that has been cooked until crisp.”
And agreed that NutritionData’s “inflammation factor” ratings need to be taken, at least figuratively, with a grain of salt. They are based on information from this source which I have no independent knowledge about but which looks fairly “pop medical” at first glance anyway.
You’re being rather kind. The “inflammation factor” looks like rank quackary to me. There’s exactly one real scientific study on "inflammation factor"that I can find on pubmed, and it concludes “tIFR might not be a biologically relevant measure of the inflammatory impact of the diet.”
ETA: Which is professional science speak for “rank quackary”.
From the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 101.9 Nutrition Labeling of Food
So it appears that if they want to list the number of grams of protein without the percent daily value, they need to include that phrase if it is less than 20% of the RDV. The RDV for adults is 50g, I believe, so anything less than 10g (corrected for quality) qualifies as “not a significant source”. It doesn’t matter if the food is 50% protein. If one serving doesn’t contain the requisite amount of protein, it isn’t a significant source.